Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cidtp (article 3 bor)

Legal area

Court

23 Aug 2023

CALUZA MARIA LOURDES GALANG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2075
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL819/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board reasonably and lawfully assessed credibility, state protection and internal relocation; the Board afforded appropriate consideration to the unrepresented minor and there were no unadvanced minor-specific non-refoulement grounds giving any realistic prospect of success.
27 Jun 2018

AHMAD MUSHTAQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL671/2017

Applicant's grounds failed because the adjudicator properly assessed credibility, applied the correct legal tests on torture, CIDTP, persecution and right to life, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and the claim was not reasonably arguable; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused as having no realistic prospect of success.
25 Jun 2018

TASKEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1341
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL591/2017

Extension of time was refused because the six‑week delay was not adequately explained and the substantive application was weak and not reasonably arguable; on the merits the adjudicator and Director lawfully and reasonably considered COI, state protection and internal relocation, applied the correct legal tests and their decisions satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
23 Apr 2018

MONA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 808
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL362/2017

The Director and the TCAB lawfully and rationally found the applicant did not demonstrate severe pain or suffering amounting to torture, did not show a real risk of CIDTP or persecution, and that state protection and internal relocation were available; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the application for leave to apply for judicial review had no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave was refused.
23 Mar 2018

SHAH FAIZ HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL398/2017

The adjudicator properly applied the relevant legal tests and COI, found no evidence of state complicity or targeting, concluded the applicant did not meet statutory or human rights thresholds for torture, CIDTP, persecution or risk to life, and there was no procedural unfairness; accordingly the leave application lacked a realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.
23 Feb 2018

HAQUE AZIZUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL442/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the TCAB properly conducted a de novo rehearing, made a detailed and justified adverse credibility finding that the applicant's account was fabricated, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, no need to consider country of origin or state acquiescence once credibility was fatal, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable so the claim was not reasonably arguable.
9 Feb 2018

AHMED PAYER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL363/2017

Leave was refused because the TCAB adjudicator's decision was lawfully reached, supported by findings that the applicant was not credible and provided no evidence of a real and substantial risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or risk to life; no error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the claim was not reasonably arguable under the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
30 Jan 2018

HAIDER RAJA NOSHERWAN ALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 198
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL57/2017

Leave refused because the Director and TCAB Adjudicator made permissible factual findings that the applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution; credibility inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence justified rejecting the claim; alleged additional facts were not new and would not meet the threshold to demonstrate arguable error of law or unfairness.